About 4-5 years ago I sold the Kona so I have not been on a MTB in a few years. In that time using my Trek Domane on paved rail trails have been my interest when cycling.I can't speak to the trails you'll ride most, but if typical XC-style, 120/120 should serve you well. You'll save a bit of weight, and maybe a bit of money.
That said, coming from 150/140, you may prefer - and be used to - more travel.
Thank you for the advice. I do realize that we are taking only 10 mm difference on the front and rear if one configures the Top Fuel with 130 mm fork. Can 10 mm additional travel be that significant? We are talking 0.4" of additional travel?I can’t speak to that specific bike. However I do have the new stumpjumper 140/130 bike. I am 50 and ride New England trails as well. Mostly in CT, VT & Maine.
I bought my son a fuel at the beginning of the pandemic and it seems like a good bike but his medium frame bike is heavier than my xxl (s6) frame.
I think Your question about roots is important. With so many riders out there now the trails are getting tougher and tougher. So more suspension is not a bad thing within reason.
I bought my son a fuel at the beginning of the pandemic and it seems like a good bike but his medium frame bike is heavier than my xxl (s6) frame.
Me personally I don’t think it will be significant. I think there is so much placebo effect with most of this stuff. Maybe not travel but I laugh every time I hear someone rave about the stiffness difference between a 34 & 36. People want to feel a difference after spending $1500 to gain X.Thank you for the advice. I do realize that we are taking only 10 mm difference on the front and rear if one configures the Top Fuel with 130 mm fork. Can 10 mm additional travel be that significant? We are talking 0.4" of additional travel?
I am looking at the entry level carbon frame build, which is a 9.7 model. I have tentatively planned to upgrade the fork to a 2022 Fox 34 Factory Step Cast and the wheelset to Reserve 30 SL with i9 hubs. I don't plan on getting to rowdy at my age. Most riding will be green level trails and maybe some easy ( jumps < a foot) intermediate trails. Definitely nothing more challenging that intermediate level.What builds? The Top Fuel 9.7 is pretty light. Also a very good all-rounder imo, especially if you don't plan on getting real rowdy.
Just FYI if you get the SC fork you can't change the travel, you're stuck with 120mm. The regular Fox 34 can be changed with an air shaft should you ever decide to go to 130mm.I am looking at the entry level carbon frame build, which is a 9.7 model. I have tentatively planned to upgrade the fork to a 2022 Fox 34 Factory Step Cast and the wheelset to Reserve 30 SL with i9 hubs.
Is that the same case with the SC 36 & Bombers or are they more like the regular 34?I think 120-130mm rear travel is the sweet spot for you based on your description of your riding.
Just FYI if you get the SC fork you can't change the travel, you're stuck with 120mm. The regular Fox 34 can be changed with an air shaft should you ever decide to go to 130mm.
Travel won't be a factor (as in you don't "need more") and weight won't be much of a factor either since it doesn't sound like you're going to do much climbing. Get what feels the most comfortable with some concentration on a bike that minimizes or eliminates hand pain, which seems to be a common issue these days.I am buying my first new FS MTB in over a decade and would like some advice and insights. Firstly, I am 47 years old and looking for a bike that I can take on green and maybe easier intermediate trails.
The most expensive way to buy a bike is to buy it and upgrade it. Swapping to a stepcast fork serves no purpose and the FIT4 is a downgrade fro the grip in ride quality. Pay the extra now to get the bike with the wheels and components you want.I am looking at the entry level carbon frame build, which is a 9.7 model. I have tentatively planned to upgrade the fork to a 2022 Fox 34 Factory Step Cast and the wheelset to Reserve 30 SL with i9 hubs. I don't plan on getting to rowdy at my age. Most riding will be green level trails and maybe some easy (no jumps < a foot) intermediate trails. Definitely nothing more challenging that intermediate level.
Thank you for the advice. I do realize that we are taking only 10 mm difference on the front and rear if one configures the Top Fuel with 130 mm fork. Can 10 mm additional travel be that significant? We are talking 0.4" of additional travel?
That's what they all say and then, you know, one thing leads to another...I don't plan on getting to rowdy at my age.
Thank you for the info. Might look into a 130 mm fork.I think 120-130mm rear travel is the sweet spot for you based on your description of your riding.
Just FYI if you get the SC fork you can't change the travel, you're stuck with 120mm. The regular Fox 34 can be changed with an air shaft should you ever decide to go to 130mm.
The best thing I have done to minimize hand pain is to install a one up carbon handle bar,Travel won't be a factor (as in you don't "need more") and weight won't be much of a factor either since it doesn't sound like you're going to do much climbing. Get what feels the most comfortable with some concentration on a bike that minimizes or eliminates hand pain, which seems to be a common issue these days.
Don't upgrade your fork unless money is burning a hole in your pocket.
I do have a set of Brontrager Line Pro Carbon Bars and Ergon Grips; I do hope the combination reduces hand pain.The best thing I have done to minimize hand pain is to install a one up carbon handle bar,
It made a HUGE difference!
120mm is more than capable. I'm 43, I have a 160mm enduro I mostly use at bike parks in the Northeast, and a 100mm hardtail I've ridden from VT to PA (I live in PA). Not much out there it didn't handle outside the bike parks, so if you're doing more intermediate trails, a FS 120mm is more than capable.Dear Everyone,
I am buying my first new FS MTB in over a decade and would like some advice and insights. Firstly, I am 47 years old and looking for a bike that I can take on green and maybe easier intermediate trails. At my age, I am not interested in jumping a bike, but living in the Northeast I see myself going over roots and rock in trails. I am definitely not interested.in bike parks with large jumps or any trails beyond an intermediate level.
My previous bike was a 2009 Kona Dawg Deluxe with 150 mm / 140 mm travel. I always found the bike a bit unstable and not the most efficient for pedaling. A few weeks ago, I put down a deposit on a large 2022 Trek Top Fuel 9.7 with the intentions of upgrading the fork (to a Fox 34 SC and wheels to a set of Reserve 30 SL to loss some weight. The 2022 Top Fuel has 120 mm of travel front and rear, but I wonder if I would be better served by a bike with more travel such as a Specialized Stumpjumper (130 mm rear / 140 mm front).
Question: If I am not intentionally jumping the bike is the 120 mm vs. 140 mm of travel going to be that significant?
I definitely do not want anything beyond 140 mm travel and do realize that the Top Fuel can take a 130 mm travel fork.
Please advise and thank you.
